At almost the same time, the market received two sets of opposing signals. On one side, Michael Saylor and the Strategy camp loudly proclaimed “Winter’s Over,” attempting to solidify “the Bitcoin winter has ended” as a new consensus; on the other side, one of Strategy's important financing tools, the perpetual preferred stock STRC, fell below the $100 par value in the market. While optimistic slogans elevated sentiment, the actual financing tools that really support buying narratives showed the first cracks, quickly shifting the discussion from whether “sentiment is warming” to a more realistic level.

This is important because Strategy has long not solely relied on verbal bullishness to influence the market; rather, it raises funds through convertible bonds, preferred stocks, and other financing tools, then continually invests that capital into Bitcoin. Thus, STRC trading below par value is interpreted as a potential pressure on its subsequent ability to efficiently raise funds and continue buying using similar tools—not that buying interest has disappeared, but that the most closely watched “financing—buying coins” machine is beginning to be doubted regarding its smooth operation as in the past.

However, another clue has not fizzled out. The U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF has recently continued to experience net inflows, indicating that external allocation demand still exists, and that the bullish narrative is not solely supported by Saylor. The question thus becomes sharper: If Strategy’s ability to finance and buy coins is hindered, can the marginal buying of Bitcoin in the next phase still rely solely on the ETF to continue?

The slogan of winter's end collides with the loss of par value

From a bullish narrative perspective, it is not surprising that Michael Saylor and the Strategy camp declared “the Bitcoin winter has ended.” Signals from a single source indicate that the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF is still experiencing net inflows, which suggests that off-market allocation demand has not receded; and Strategy has long relied on convertible bonds, preferred stocks, and other financing tools to raise capital, continuously directing funds toward Bitcoin—this “financing—buying—strengthening confidence” path is inherently easy to package as a more complete victory declaration when the market warms up. Therefore, “winter is over” is not just an expression of sentiment, but rather seems to be searching for a sufficiently loud slogan to accompany this round of warming.

However, the market did not completely buy into this narrative, and the reason is straightforward: around the same time, STRC, an important tool in Strategy’s financing system, reportedly fell below the $100 par value. For any buying machine that relies on continuous operation in the capital markets, this is not a signal to be taken lightly. It does not necessarily mean that financing has been interrupted, but it indicates at least that the market has begun to reassess this financing structure based on price—especially whether it can still raise funds efficiently in a similar manner in the future and continue buying.

The drama lies precisely here. The Saylor camp provides a clear directional declaration: the winter is over; the market counters with a cold price quote: STRC trades below par. The former is a narrative, while the latter is pricing. The former appeals to belief, while the latter reflects risk appetite. When slogans collide with prices, the market typically prefers to believe the latter, for the price of actual transactions often reveals fund hesitations much earlier than any public statements.

Therefore, the focus of this round of controversy is not merely whether “winter has passed,” but rather a more realistic layer: while ETF funds are still flowing in and external demand appears healthy, the most symbolically significant financing buying engine of Strategy has shown signs of weakness in its tool prices. The slogan can continue to be raised high, but as long as signals indicating the loss of par value exist, it is hard for the market to treat the optimistic narrative as an unquestionable fact.

Preferred stocks fall below a hundred, financing begins to tighten

What truly alerts the market is not daily fluctuations in stock prices, but that a more crucial gear within Strategy's financing machine is beginning to make unusual noises. For a long time, the reason this company could continuously translate “bullish on Bitcoin” into actual buying was not just its verbal stance but rather its ability to first raise funds through convertible bonds, preferred stocks, and then convert that capital into Bitcoin positions. In other words, the core narrative of Strategy has never just been about “holders,” but also about continuously directing capital market financing capabilities toward Bitcoin allocations as a structured buyer. STRC, being one of its important financing tools, is therefore particularly sensitive.

Because of this, when STRC falls below the $100 par value, the market tends to amplify its interpretation. Par value is not simply a numerical anchor; it corresponds to whether investors are willing to accept such tools under a relatively complete pricing logic. If even existing tools are trading below par in the secondary market, then external parties naturally will question: if Strategy wants to raise funds again in a similar manner at par value in the future, will it be as smooth as in the past?

The key here is not to exaggerate the issue to “financing has been interrupted,” but rather to recognize that the pricing power is becoming less taken for granted. The original statement provided in briefings was also quite restrained: that STRC trading below par could weaken its ability to issue new shares at par value to raise funds, thus impacting its ongoing buying plans. This “could” itself is the core of the current controversy. The market is not worried that the machine has already stalled, but rather that the conditions for it to continue operating at high speeds are undergoing a stricter examination than the slogans.

That is why the fall of STRC is more worth tracking than simple emotional fluctuations. Michael Saylor and the Strategy camp can continue to emphasize, “the Bitcoin winter has ended,” but as long as one of the most critical financing tools first shows cracks in price, the market will shift its focus from the narrative itself to the execution ability: if the willingness to absorb similar financing tools decreases in the future, then Strategy’s ability to continue converting capital market funds into Bitcoin buying may face marginal pressure. Whether this pressure will actually evolve into a slowdown in buying strength cannot yet be written off as a foregone conclusion.

The spot fund is still attracting investment; who continues the bullish narrative?

However, the story does not end with a void. Just as the market begins to question whether Strategy's financing chain will face marginal pressure, the buying on the other end is still active: the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF has recently maintained net inflows. Even if the briefings do not provide more detailed amounts, shares, or breakdowns by issuer, the direction itself is sufficient to explain the issue—traditional financial institutions and retail investors' allocation demand has not retreated alongside the rising controversies.

This is also one of the reasons why bullish sentiment has not rapidly lost momentum. The ETF accommodates more typical allocation fund logic: funds enter through compliant products, and the decision-making framework is closer to asset allocation, risk diversification, and long-term holding. It may not arrive as fiercely as high-leverage funds, but it often signifies that “someone is still willing to buy, and they are buying in a more traditional way.”

Yet, herein lies the problem. The net inflow of the ETF cannot be simply understood as sufficient to seamlessly replace the potentially slowing marginal buying of Strategy. On the surface, both types of funds are buying Bitcoin, but their underlying mechanisms are different: one type is traditional allocation funds, which are more dispersed and influenced by macro preferences and product subscriptions; the other is reliant on convertible bonds, preferred stocks, and other financing tools, continuously converting money raised in the capital markets into high-intensity purchasing on the company’s balance sheet. The former indicates the existence of demand, while the latter resembles an engine capable of actively amplifying purchasing power.

Therefore, what the market is truly entangled with is not “is anyone still buying,” but rather “who is defining the next phase of buying strength.” The sustained net inflow of ETFs demonstrates that external allocation demand still exists; however, if companies like Strategy that rely on financing tools truly exhibit marginal slowdowns in buying, it cannot yet be easily concluded whether ETFs can adequately fill that possible gap. The bulls have not lost support; rather, the nature of that support is shifting from “highly elastic active increases” to “more stable but perhaps not equally forceful passive allocations.”

The myth of unlimited ammunition starts to show cracks

What truly warrants caution is not whether Strategy will stop buying tomorrow, but rather that the market is beginning to seriously question for the first time: is the “financing—buying coins—refinancing” mechanism that has been implicitly accepted for continuous cycles becoming more expensive, slower, and more difficult to accept unconditionally?

For a long time, the market has been accustomed to viewing two forces in parallel: on one side is the continuous net inflow of the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF, representing persistent external allocation demand; on the other side, Strategy continually raises funds through convertible bonds, preferred stocks, and other tools, transforming those funds into buying, creating a more aggressive incremental source. Therefore, when Michael Saylor and the Strategy camp publicly declare “the Bitcoin winter has ended,” the market is willing to grant a higher level of trust, as this is not just an optimistic attitude but also appears to be endorsing a “proven, continuous buying machine.”

However, at nearly the same time, important financing tools like STRC falling below the $100 par value is beginning to fracture this narrative. The core concern surrounding it is not complex: if even key financing tools are trading below par, the market will naturally doubt whether Strategy can continue to raise funds efficiently in a similar manner and stabilize this financing capability into new buying. The question raised in the briefings has effectively pinpointed the crux—does STRC trading below par imply that Strategy’s “unlimited ammunition” model is starting to encounter a bottleneck?

This brings the issue directly to the pricing formation level. Many traders had previously assumed that behind this round of Bitcoin’s ascent are “two engines” operating simultaneously: the ETF provides a continuous absorbing allocation-type buying, while Strategy offers a more elastic, stronger narrative corporate buying. Now, the ETF engine continues to turn, but the other engine has shown signs of shaking. As long as the financing chain is perceived by the market to be under pressure, the expectation of “how much new buying will come from Strategy in the future” must be re-priced.

And the first impacted by re-pricing is often not the spot buying itself, but the premium structure built around expectations. For Strategy, the market was previously willing to grant it additional valuations largely based on its ability to continuously raise funds and increase Bitcoin allocations; once this marginal expansion capability is questioned, this part of the valuation premium will be under pressure. The same logic applies to Bitcoin: if “ETF inflows + Strategy increasing positions” were seen as the most solid double support for the bulls, then if one of the pillars weakens, the narrative premium will naturally be compressed.

Therefore, the most crucial change now is not that the optimistic narrative is completely overturned, but rather that it is no longer as complete as before. The net inflows of ETFs indicate that demand has not disappeared, but STRC trading below par reminds the market that Strategy’s actively leveraged, expansionist buying engine does not truly possess unlimited ammunition. Once this myth begins to wane, the market will not only focus on “whether buying continues,” but will become more sensitive to “how long can buying last, how fast can it happen, and whether it can continue to play the role of a second engine.”

Who will step on the gas for Bitcoin’s next surge?

Thus, the real issue now is not whether a phrase like “winter has ended” can continue to boost sentiment, but rather who will provide the sustained momentum for the next market phase. At least in the short term, the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF remains in a net inflow situation, meaning that external allocation-type buying is still present and providing support for market sentiment; however, extending the timeframe, the medium-term narrative’s ability to continue expanding increasingly cannot avoid another more realistic variable—whether Strategy's financing capability can recover.

This is also the most delicate bifurcation point in the current bullish narrative. For a long time, Strategy relied on convertible bonds, preferred stocks, and other tools for financing, continually morphing that capital into buying; this mechanism itself has been part of the market's confidence. Now, with STRC falling below $100 par value, even if it cannot directly equate to a financing interruption, it is sufficient to prompt the market to begin reassessing whether this actively expanding buying engine can continue to operate smoothly as in the past. The inflow of the ETF can prove that demand still exists, but it does not necessarily mean it can seamlessly take over all the narrative weight left by Strategy.

Going forward, the market will likely circle around a few more concrete signals for repeated pricing:

● Can STRC return to above par value?
This relates not only to the performance of a single product's price but also to the market's judgment on the availability of Strategy's financing tools.

● Will Strategy adjust its financing arrangements?
Whether regarding rhythm, structure, or tool selection, any changes will be seen as important signals of whether its financing ability is recovering.

● Can the net inflow of the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF continue?
If external allocation demands persist, short-term sentiment will continue to have support; if this force weakens, the market’s sensitivity to internal buying slowdowns will quickly increase.

In other words, this round is more like a relay test within the bulls rather than a final verdict on “winter has ended” or the “failure of a bull market.” External buying still exists; however, internal financing has begun to show cracks that warrant reevaluation. Who will step on the gas next ultimately depends not on how loud a slogan is, but on which buying force can genuinely prove their ability to continue pushing the price narrative in the upcoming phase.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。